Appointed Committees

NUISANCE WEED AD HOC COMMITTEE December 20, 2016 Page 1 Committee Members Present: Stephan Podrygula, Shaun Sipma, Miranda Schuler, Sandy Horob Members Absent Lauren Tiffany Others Present: City Attorney, City Clerk, Lacey McCarten, Public Works Director, Assistant Public Works Director, City Engineer, City Planner, Ward County Weed Board, Alderman Straight, Jill Schramm, Park District, Fire Chief. Finance Director, Police Chief Olson Alderman Podrygula brought the meeting to order at 12:01 pm. Alderman Podrygula explained last meeting (12/13/2016) was canceled due to not having enough committee members available to attend to have a quorum. Approval of Minutes from December 2, 2016 meeting Alderman Schuler moved the committee approve the minutes from the December 2nd, 2016 committee meeting, including the change as requested by Alderman Podrygula. Motion seconded by Alderman Sipma and carried unanimously. Approval of Scheduling Meeting Dates Alderman Sipma moved the committee approve the schedule of meeting dates. Motion seconded by Alderman Schuler and carried unanimously. Introduction and Initial Perspectives of Staff a. Public Works – Budget for Nuisance Weed Public Works Director, Mr. Jonasson, handed out a document to answer financial questions Alderman Schuler requested at the December 2nd, 2016 meeting. Mr. Jonasson explained from the sheet that the number of nuisance weed letters returned in 2016 was 41, and of the returned letters on properties, all were mowed by city forces except 5 (large tracts of land in NW Minot). He presented an estimated cost to acquire more personnel and equipment for mowing major lots (5+ acres) at $313,000. Mr. Jonasson estimated the cost for contract mowing at $5,000 per acre or $1.10/square yard or $0.12 per square foot. This estimate was based on a bid price from a contractor used for cleanup of blighted lots. He provided a current cost for work from a contractor as of December 2, 2016 as well: Weed Spraying - $70 per acre/ chemical included (includes man/machine/fuel/chemical) Hourly Equipment Rates Tractor & Disk - $115/hr 1|Page NUISANCE WEED AD HOC COMMITTEE December 20, 2016 Page 2 Large Excavator - $135/hr Small Excavator - $110/hr Dozer - $130/hr Pay Loader - $115/hr Dum trucks - $80/hr Skid Steer - $95/hr Mobilization - $300 per piece of equipment per site, no mobilization for weed spraying equipment Alderman Sipma asked which is more cost effective for the city, to use contractors or to purchase the needed equipment and hire additional employees. Mr. Jonasson replied it would be more beneficial to bid out to contractors. Alderman Schuler agreed and said the issues with undeveloped lots can add serious liability issues to the City. Committee Member Horob questioned whether there were any lawn services willing to bid for a contract with the City. The Public Works director stated there could be two interested but would not know until going through the bid process. Mr. Jonasson was unable to contact Bismarck to ascertain how they manage nuisance weeds and lawns. Alderman Podrygula requested he get back with the board once Bismarck contacts him. Upon questioning by Alderman Podrygula, the Public Works Director stated the city maintains approximately 250 flood lots and is looking at a total of about 600 lots when all the buyouts are done. Suggestions Alderman Podrygula made include reducing the number of ads, updating the fees, and comparing bidding work with buying equipment. He would like to also look at State Agriculture programs for assistance. The proposals would result in scaling up costs for the 2018 budget. b. Planning & Zoning – planning and code enforcement City Planner, Robert Davis, stated developmental issues are a top nuisance in unfinished construction sites. He requested the City Attorney, give her presentation on noxious weed abatement before presenting his comments. c. Legal The City Attorney described City powers (NDCC 40-05-01 (44)) and authorities (under Article 3(i) to prevent nuisances. She presented points from the City of Minot Code of Ordinances Chapter 22, and then read from the Notice of Nuisances and Demand for Nuisances Abatement sheet (handed out last meeting), “NUISANCES PER SE: Any accumulation of (i) organic materials or (ii) inorganic materials, of (ii) combination of both, which is located on private property, and which, because of the circumstances in which it is stored or accumulated, presents 2|Page NUISANCE WEED AD HOC COMMITTEE December 20, 2016 Page 3 a hazard to the health or safety of any person or which presents a hazard to any other property, private or public.” The City Attorney noted there is a separate ordinance for forestry and tree nuisances. The committee then discussed adding to the list of nuisances piles of dirt, construction material and inert matter that are visual nuisances. Committee Member Horob mentioned the list should be more specific. Alderman Podrygula requested the City Attorney to write a new list for the ordinance. The City Attorney continued with her presentation, discussing the notice to abate nuisance, hearing on necessity of abatement, City’s authority to abate, assessment of costs and hearing on Special assessment, and the steps required to notify. Alderman Straight suggested a requirement for properties reseed to help cut down the spread of weeds. The Committee discussed a landscaping requirement, for the properties to at minimum, maintain grass. Alderman Podrygula suggested a program similar to Adopt a Highway where citizens can adopt a property to maintain vacant lots. One problem occurs when new construction sites do not address landscaping right away, allowing weeds to grow. The Planning Director and Code Enforcement Officer discussed the problems with enforcement when owners do not maintain properties and new construction sites. Alderman Podrygula summarized the two key issues are financing and enforcement. He requested the City Attorney, Planning Director, and Code Enforcement Officer to collect information from other cities on how to enforce these topics and what codes/zoning ordinances they have written. Alderman Podrygula would like to look at the role of County Weed Board and possibly creating a City Weed Board. He would also like to see a flow chart on which direction to go with process. Adjournment Before adjourning, Alderman Podrygula requested to pick up with the City Attorney’s presentation next meeting. Alderman Sipma added he would like to see work towards streamlining regarding protocol, discuss raising price/fine, and look at a weed board or city funding a position. The next meeting will be Tuesday January 10th, 2017 at 12:00 pm. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Lacey McCarten Administrative Clerk 3|Page